Date   

moderated Re: New setting: moderate messages containing links #suggestion

 

Haha you got that right about cyber claws! Plus a few hisses. ūüėä


On Jan 19, 2021, at 9:15 AM, Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:

ÔĽŅJ,

I suggested something like that to management a few months ago, a message content/keyword-filtering ability that works in conjunction with the group (or specific user) moderation setting: it would be checked & applied first, i.e. check for the key phrase/word/etc and if it found it it would do whatever the action was, if not, then the regular group-then-user moderation settings would then be checked & applied.  This would allow that functionality to be used for other situations as well, not just yours; for example, the corollary to your case, in a moderated group, certain messages could be set to pass unmoderated if they contain the keyword(s).

You are wright, at the very least, your simpler wish (moderate a undesirable message even if group is unmoderated) can be very useful; right now it's either 100% black or 100% white in that functionality area, a bit of grey could help enhance its power & flexibility.

Just musing, but if a full-fledged content-filtering solution was to be developed, there's also the option of it being a paid upgrade group feature.  (oh-oh, all of a sudden I hear the sound of cyberclaws on a file...)

Cheers,
Christos

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I am right.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: New setting: moderate messages containing links #suggestion

 

J,

I suggested something like that to management a few months ago, a message content/keyword-filtering ability that works in conjunction with the group (or specific user) moderation setting: it would be checked & applied first, i.e. check for the key phrase/word/etc and if it found it it would do whatever the action was, if not, then the regular group-then-user moderation settings would then be checked & applied.  This would allow that functionality to be used for other situations as well, not just yours; for example, the corollary to your case, in a moderated group, certain messages could be set to pass unmoderated if they contain the keyword(s).

You are wright, at the very least, your simpler wish (moderate a undesirable message even if group is unmoderated) can be very useful; right now it's either 100% black or 100% white in that functionality area, a bit of grey could help enhance its power & flexibility.

Just musing, but if a full-fledged content-filtering solution was to be developed, there's also the option of it being a paid upgrade group feature.  (oh-oh, all of a sudden I hear the sound of cyberclaws on a file...)

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: Poll participation by non-account holders #suggestion

Tom U
 


Thanks for the constructive discussion of implementation.  I know that not every suggestion fits the intention of a system or may be easily implemented.

Yes, we are evaluating if the paid features provide value.  I suggested the poll partly as a way to test the value of that feature, but polling is not a critical feature.

For polls that I can imagine doing in my group, I have no problem with the responses being anonymous and unprotected.  There is little reason for someone to manipulate them and results are merely informative.  

I can also see the need for each respondent being authenticated.  Before submitting this request, I took a look at poll creation to see if there was an option to choose between those two modes.  P

My guess is that plan to identify with out authenticating that identity is subject to manipulation.  It is too complex for "I don't care who responds" and not secure enough for "I only want my authenticated users to respond."

Tom





moderated Open Help Centre in new window #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

Hi Mark,

if you're working on the Groups.io site and want to refer to the manuals, clicking Help defaults to opening the help centre in the current browser window/tab meaning you lose focus on what you were working on. I think it may be more helpful to open the Help Centre in a new tab or window to make it a bit easier to switch between the two. It is of course possible to right-click the link and select an option of a new window or tab etc. but that's more mouse clicks and may be considered advanced by some.

Regards
Andy


moderated Re: #suggestion Need to permit different email addresses for group joining #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:04 PM, judy Warden wrote:
Consequently, I already have two accounts so tried to set up a third but seems it didn't let me. Got around this by opening with a new browser. 
You don't actually state what error message, if any, you see when you say 'it didn't let me'.  Groups.io uses a cookie to keep track of whether someone is logged in or not so if you resolved your issue by using a different browser it suggests you may not have logged out from one account before trying to access another in the same browser session. Many Owners and Mods have multiple accounts and some manage this by using different browsers. Personally, I use Firefox with the Multi-account Containers add-on which isolates cookies between different browser tabs.  That way I can have multiple accounts logged into Groups.io at one time and just switch browser tabs to access them.

One of the main reasons that Owners and Mods have multiple accounts is so that they can view their groups from different perspectives. The options available to your group members will most likely be different to what a group owner sees and it's helpful to have a member's view especially when group settings are being changed.  This may not have been your initial reason for asking but something to consider anyway.

Regards
Andy


moderated Re: Poll participation by non-account holders #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 02:34 PM, Duane wrote:
That could create a secondary complication though where someone decides to change their vote.  Maybe in that case they'd need to contact the owner/mod and request a new 'vote link' (a one-shot sent by the owner/mod)? 
What I was visualizing is that the separate links for each response would continue to be valid after voting. If someone wanted to change his vote, he need only click on a different link, and the new vote would supersede the old one.

Some variety of this could also function as a way to allow folks to vote for more than one option in a poll that has the "allow multiple choices" flag set.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: #suggestion Need to permit different email addresses for group joining #suggestion

judy Warden <myizrblu@...>
 

That is what I  am already doing and it seems like a waste of time and space to have different .io accts for different groups.  Would it be much more simple to have 0ne .io account with the option in subsciptions to changed that group to a preferred address rather than many .io accounts.   Consequently, I already have two accounts so tried to set up a third but seems it didn't let me. Got around this by opening with a new browser. 
Have a great day,
AZJudy


On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:30 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:14 AM, judy Warden wrote:
We could join a group and then state the address we preferred to use for that specific group.
You can already do that, you just need a different account using the other email address(es) when joining a group.  The only difference is that you're responsible for keeping things separate instead of the site.  I use several emails/accounts on GIO, so it's easy to keep them separate (and keep me less confused.)  BTW, this has been discussed before and doesn't seem to be a pressing concern.

Duane


--
Thanks,
 Judy


moderated Re: #suggestion Need to permit different email addresses for group joining #suggestion

 

Judy,

Depending on what you want to achieve by having different email addresses for each group, we may can offer a way of doing it; for example, if what you like by this scheme is that you have "clean"/separate inboxes, you can achieve this by adding all the accounts you want to use to your main GIO account as aliases, and creating Forward-then-Delete rules/filters on that main account's inbox to route the messages to the respective inboxes by using the [group_tag] value in the subject line as the "router".  So by spending a few minutes, you can do this and the end result will be the same more-or-less as it was on yahoo, inbound group emails still go to the separate inboxes as before; the only difference is that if you reply to one of those routed messages from the aliased inbox, your reply will not show as coming from that account but from the main one.

If you're not familiar with account aliases, read here:
https://groups.io/helpcenter/membersmanual/1/understanding-groups-io-accounts/setting-account-preferences-and-viewing-account-information
It allows you to send messages to your group from a different email address than your main one.  By augmenting that with the inbox filter/rule routing you now get back the ability to also receive group messages to physically-different inboxes, same behavior as was on yahoo.

If this is not the reason for wanting this, let us know.

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: Can you clarify the long-term status of "legacy" groups? #suggestion

Duane
 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 02:24 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
What can we expect to pay ( approximately) in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025?
I don't work for GIO (and don't have a crystal ball ;>), but I'd expect your costs to remain the same as they are now for those years.  So far, Mark has been very kind in allowing existing groups to remain on their current plan, Basic or Premium.  The message you referenced, https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27191, does say that it's for groups created (or upgraded) after the implementation.  As long as you don't drop back to Basic and upgrade again, nothing should change for you.

As I understand things, even with 4708 members, you could use a Premium group, but it would cost ~$2600/yr if it were an upgrade.

Duane


moderated Generic link type #suggestion

Gilbert Coville
 

Last summer Mark added links in the files sections, with type of Google Drive/Docs, Dropbox, Box, or Microsoft Onedrive. Each link type has a nice icon to go with it representive of the service.

One group I’m in is doing quite a bit of file hosting on a different platform: archive.org.

Instead of attempting to add a link type for every service out there, it would be nice to have a generic link type that uses a more generic icon. A search for ‚Äúexternal link Icon‚ÄĚ brings up some familiar ones with a little square with an arrow pointing out of it. Or you use the chain-link icon used in the groups.io message composer.

Gilbert


moderated Re: Poll participation by non-account holders #suggestion

 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:45 AM David Grimm <engrdave325@...> wrote:

So perhaps Groups.io isn't for you or your group. It was explained to you why the feature you requested doesn't exist the way you envision it, and maybe it was a little blunt, but so is asking for a change to the system to conform to what YOU think it ought to be. 


As has been pointed out, beta is where one does ask for the system to be changed. 

I am confused as to why the OP's request has generated such heat. It was a completely reasonable request! I want the Groups.io service, and by proxy the beta group, to be welcoming to people of all skill/knowledge levels. Please remember that. Some of the responses here do not live up to that. Tom, on behalf of the group, I want to apologize for that.

I am moderating this topic and will only approve helpful posts.

Mark


moderated Re: Poll participation by non-account holders #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 01/18/2021 11:03, Peter Cook wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 01:45 PM, David Grimm wrote:
asking for a change to the system to conform to what YOU think it ought to be
That's part of the purpose of beta. 

Exactly. That comment bothered me and you put words to my unease.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Can you clarify the long-term status of "legacy" groups? #suggestion

David Kirkby
 

I'm one of the owners of this group


we have 4,708 members, and since we are using more than 1 GB of disk space, we are paying  for the "Premium" package. Our membership is not due for renewal until 30th August this year. What can we expect to pay ( approximately) in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025?

This post


Are we going to be looking at a cost of a couple of hundreds dollars/year, or thousands of dollars per year?

4708 members appear to be in the "Enterprise" membership region, which runs into the thousands of dollars/year, not hundreds, so would be a significant expense.

Perhaps you could clarify more about the legacy groups. If the pricing of our group is going to go anywhere near the thousands of dollars per year, then we will probably look to set up phpBB on a virtual private server and/or use a mailing list. Groups.io suits us well, but I would like to suggest you make it more clear what the plans are for current premium gropus.

Dr David Kirkby Ph.D C.Eng MIET
Email: drkirkby@... Web: https://www.kirkbymicrowave.co.uk/
Kirkby Microwave Ltd (Tel 01621-680100 / +44 1621-680100)
Stokes Hall Lodge, Burnham Rd, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 6DT.




moderated Re: Poll participation by non-account holders #suggestion

Peter Cook
 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 01:45 PM, David Grimm wrote:
asking for a change to the system to conform to what YOU think it ought to be
That's part of the purpose of beta. 


moderated Re: Poll participation by non-account holders #suggestion

Duane
 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:15 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
At first blush, Bruce's proposal makes sense to me, although I'd just add one change: just make the Vote Now link work the same way as an 'email me a login link' works now. It would automatically log you in if you weren't already logged in.
A couple of situations I can see offhand.  One is the forwarding that's already been mentioned.  To minimize that problem, the 'login' could be a one-shot with no cookie set, but could still be misused at times.  That could create a secondary complication though where someone decides to change their vote.  Maybe in that case they'd need to contact the owner/mod and request a new 'vote link' (a one-shot sent by the owner/mod)?  This situation is related to the suggestion at https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/29461, though there was never any discussion on it so I don't think it was presented on beta.

Duane


moderated Re: Poll participation by non-account holders #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 01/18/2021 11:21, Bruce Bowman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 01:59 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Help me out here, because I'm not sure how your recommendation solves the problem you state. Let's say there are separate links in the email as you recommend. Let us then say I forward my email to Joe. Joe clicks the link and votes without logging in. That's the same result as in Mark's recommendation.
Yes, this person clicking on a vote in a forwarded message has cast a proxy vote in your name, which is bad (and which I already mentioned here).

But it's not nearly as bad as having him remain logged in, so that he could subsequently change your subscription options, unsubscribe you from groups, post spam, or any other number of nasty things -- with your name attached to it.

Regards,
Bruce

Aha, gotcha. Yes, continued impersonation of the authorization would be bad.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: Poll participation by non-account holders #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 01:59 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
Help me out here, because I'm not sure how your recommendation solves the problem you state. Let's say there are separate links in the email as you recommend. Let us then say I forward my email to Joe. Joe clicks the link and votes without logging in. That's the same result as in Mark's recommendation.
Yes, this person clicking on a vote in a forwarded message has cast a proxy vote in your name, which is bad (and which I already mentioned here).

But it's not nearly as bad as having him remain logged in, so that he could subsequently change your subscription options, unsubscribe you from groups, post spam, or any other number of nasty things -- with your name attached to it.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Poll participation by non-account holders #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 01/18/2021 10:45, Bruce Bowman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 01:15 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
At first blush, Bruce's proposal makes sense to me, although I'd just add one change: just make the Vote Now link work the same way as an 'email me a login link' works now. It would automatically log you in if you weren't already logged in.
Mark -- On first sight, I kinda like this, except for the potential for forwarding, and accidentally granting someone else access to your account. Having specifically requested a link to log in, folks are unlikely to forward that email...this is not necessarily true with an ordinary group email, especially if the poll is mixed up with other messages in a digest.

With these things considered I'd still prefer that we provide separate links for each poll response and record the vote that arrives via clicking each link without logging anyone in.

Regards,
Bruce

Bruce,

Help me out here, because I'm not sure how your recommendation solves the problem you state. Let's say there are separate links in the email as you recommend. Let us then say I forward my email to Joe. Joe clicks the link and votes without logging in. That's the same result as in Mark's recommendation.

All that said, as yet another owner of 99% email groups, I strongly approve of this proposal, however it eventually takes shape.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: Poll participation by non-account holders #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 01:15 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
At first blush, Bruce's proposal makes sense to me, although I'd just add one change: just make the Vote Now link work the same way as an 'email me a login link' works now. It would automatically log you in if you weren't already logged in.
Mark -- On first sight, I kinda like this, except for the potential for forwarding, and accidentally granting someone else access to your account. Having specifically requested a link to log in, folks are unlikely to forward that email...this is not necessarily true with an ordinary group email, especially if the poll is mixed up with other messages in a digest.

With these things considered I'd still prefer that we provide separate links for each poll response and record the vote that arrives via clicking each link without logging anyone in.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Poll participation by non-account holders #suggestion

David Grimm
 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:19 PM, Tom U wrote:
That's exactly what I do want to do.  At least for the majority of members.   I hope that the additional pro services would be of benefit to the managers but if the only way to make use of them is to get 100 kayakers to learn about groups.io features, well, not going to work for this group.

OK, I'm a little testy about being told how I should be using the service.  There is a way that I want to use the service.  I hope that I have explained my reasons for my use case.  
So perhaps Groups.io isn't for you or your group. It was explained to you why the feature you requested doesn't exist the way you envision it, and maybe it was a little blunt, but so is asking for a change to the system to conform to what YOU think it ought to be. 

Dave

1321 - 1340 of 29104